Atheism refuted indisputably.

[mzungu]

My heart and a piano are both organs; therefore my heart can make music and a piano can keep me alive. Makes perfect sense!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nope, the term Atheism derives from the Greek word Atheos, which means Godless/No God. Ism means the Belief.

Such as Theos Ism, that's Theism.

Atheism is Atheos Ism, the Belief that God "doesn't" exist.

No.

Atheism = without theism.

Theist says "god exists"
Person says "I don't believe you"

Person is now an atheist.

Humans didn't cause the Plastic/Laptop to exist, they simply put it together, Not Cause it to Exist. so it's in no way analogous to the OP argument.

Plastic doesn't exist in nature.
Neither to a lot of the materials used in laptops.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A MindLESS entity(or Nothing) lacks the properties of a Mind, our Cause cannot lack properties for a Mind/Free Will/Awareness as those properties are derived from the Cause.

By that logic, it ends up in an infinite regress of minds causing minds causing minds causing minds....

You may begin your special pleading now.

 

[sfs]

No, as the Cause always has greater properties than the Effect.

So acorns, which are the Cause of oaks, have greater properties than oaks. And oaks, which are the Cause of acorns, in turn have greater properties than acorns. Clearly, this implies that acorns and oaks both have infinite properties. I guess.

 

[sfs]

"Not even wrong" sums up this one pretty well, I'm afraid.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

My heart and a piano are both organs; therefore my heart can make music and a piano can keep me alive. Makes perfect sense!

Not analogous to OP argument.

That is SO true!
After all, always when I boil water for the purpose of cooking, I also need to boil first, because I can't cause I must first have the same properties as the effect I'm causing.

Thing is we started to exist, we're not talking about a change of properties, we're talking about a property coming into existence.

Good point.
Not to forget: Aren't we all sinners? So, god must be sinner too, right? We can't have the property of being sinners, unless god is one as well.
Also, our universe is slowly, but inevitably running out of usuable energy, and will eventually die a heat-death...
So... god will die a heat-death too? Will this happen before the universe dies?

You haven't read the Bible have you?

Bible doesn't say "all are sinners", Read:

Romans 3:23 .For all have sinned(Past Tense), and come short of the glory of God(YHWH) Rom 3:24-26...Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Churches on Trial: All haved sinned and fall short of the Glory of God

YHWH cannot sin, He is Love, He's perfect. that doesn't mean we're perfect, I never argued that the Cause is Equal to the Effect, the Cause has the properties of the Effect.

The fact that you think Sin/Evil is a Thing refutes your own argument, as Evil is not a Thing, Evil is a Lack of Good, it's an Action.

Irrelevant. The vast majority of atheists define themselves as lacking belief in deities not the absolute assertion that none exist.

You are arguing with a straw man.

No it isn't irrelevant, that's the definition of atheism, I was speaking on Atheism, not atheists(or actually Agnostics if they claim they Don't Know whether He exists or not)

Grasping at straws.

Care to back up this assertion? How do you deal with the "first cause" problem?

Whatever Begins to Exist has a Cause, Not everything has a Cause. we know that we have a cause as we began to exist, likewise the Universe has a cause because it began to exist.

Lay off the tone. I may not believe in sin

So you don't believe that Not Treating people the same way you would want them to treat you exists. it certainly exists and has effected many.

but humanity having a sinful nature is hardly an uncommon view within Christianity.

Views about Christianity, have nothing to do nor do they have effect on Christian doctrine.

People can view the Earth as Flat, according to your argument the earth would be flat, Obviously though the Earth is Not flat.

Likewise, a Billion people Claiming to be Christian could view God as only 2 persons, doesn't change the fact that the Bible shows YHWH/God is The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)

I read your blog post, and I think you are unclear. Sin is harm... but you also define sin as disobeying God.

God(YHWH) is love, if you do Not Treat others the same way you would want them to treat you, you have done Lawlessness(disobey as the Law is To Treat people the same way you would want them to treat you - Matthew 7:12.)

What about harmless things that (at times) have been forbidden by God: Getting a tattoo, eating pork, getting some work done on a Sunday?

Getting a Tattoo isn't a sin, getting a Tattoo about something harmful is/getting a Tattoo for the dead was prohibited in Israel.

Eating Pork & Working on Sabbath(Sunday? Saturday was the Sabbath, after Jesus Christ Resurrected it became Sunday Breaking the Bread) were prohibited in Israel Only. Noah didn't get those prohibitions nor do those for whom Jesus Christ came, they were simply for the land of Israel.

Has the property of matter, so where is he? How much does he weigh? How fast can her travel?

He's not the property of matter, He has the property of matter.

Where is He? So you think that YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) is Physical? If you read the Bible you'd know He's Immaterial/Non-Physical.

Why is a mind required for a mind to develop? You have repeatedly asserted this, but not backed it up.

Properties of the Mind do not exist with a MindLESS entity(or nothing).

In Layman's terms, You cannot give what you Do Not have.

A snow flake requires water to form... but the structure is not found in the material that forms it, it emerges naturally from the behavior of the chemicals. I see no reason not to accept human minds emerging just as naturally from the physical matter that makes up our brains.

A Mind is a Thing, not a reaction or state. All Matter is the same, so if my Mind is an Atom, then according to that idea the Wall, which is also Atoms would be a Mind/Person.

Obviously thought that's not true, the Wall is not conscious/a Mind, the Mind is not an Atom.

Also a Snow Flake doesn't come into existence, it's the same property as water just in a different form. whereas we're talking about the Cause of Existence, not a change of state.

That is SO true!
After all, always when I boil water for the purpose of cooking, I also need to boil first, because I can't cause I must first have the same properties as the effect I'm causing.

Thing is we started to exist, we're not talking about a change of properties, we're talking about a property coming into existence.

No.

Atheism = without theism.

Nope, Theism derives from Theos, Ism means Belief.

Atheism derives from Atheos/ἄθεος Ism means Belief. Hence Atheism, belief in Atheos.

Plastic doesn't exist in nature.
Neither to a lot of the materials used in laptops.

Everything you get that's Material you get from the earth, including plastic and the laptop.

By that logic, it ends up in an infinite regress of minds causing minds causing minds causing minds....

You may begin your special pleading now.

No it doesn't, as an Infinite Regression is impossible, that isn't special pleading, Special Pleading is asserting that an Infinite Regression is possible and asserting that "everything has a cause"

Fact is only whatever Begins to exist has a cause and Infinite Regression is impossible.

So acorns, which are the Cause of oaks, have greater properties than oaks. And oaks, which are the Cause of acorns, in turn have greater properties than acorns. Clearly, this implies that acorns and oaks both have infinite properties. I guess.

Oaks got the properties from the acorn and resources from the ground, sun, watering, etc.

We're talking about Existence Cause and Effect, Not relation.

What you're talking about is a Relation Cause and Effect, where for example, water turns into a snowflake,

The argument is based on Cause of Existence.

 

[RichardParker]

Thing is we started to exist, we're not talking about a change of properties, we're talking about a property coming into existence.

Yes, and boiling IS a new property, that came into existence then.
Sure, the water was the same and has just changed form. But the "boiling" things came into existence newly, because the water wasn't boiling before, and now it is. It's a new property, given by me... therefore I had to boil first as well.

You haven't read the Bible have you?

Of course I have. I just tent to take things more at face value when I read them, and am less likely to try to make them fit the idea I already have about it.

But ok.
So, we come short of the glory of god.
This means that god as well needs to come short of the glory of god, right?
After all, we couldn't have this property, if god didn't have it as well.

Must be a terrible existence your god has. This must be a fairly self-loathing entity, given that he falls short to his own glory.

YHWH cannot sin, He is Love, He's perfect. that doesn't mean we're perfect, I never argued that the Cause is Equal to the Effect, the Cause has the properties of the Effect.

So, we are not perfect. This is an attribute of us. This means (by YOUR logic here) that god also has the attribute of non-perfection.
...
And yet you say here that he is perfect?
...
I have to say, I have seen many attempts of proving god, but yours seems to be the most incoherent so far.
After all, we humans have LOTS of properties you don't want to attribute to your god, so for you to start out with claiming that all attributes we have must be shared by our creator is... well, it turns your god into something you clearly don't want him.
I would advice you to rethink this "argument".
I mean, we're all clearly having a lot of fun with it, so if you want to defend it, we're all on board
But even if we granted you all your premises, for which we have no reason to, you end up with a god you clearly don't want to defend.

 

[mzungu]

Simple Logic and Scientific Princple of Cause and Effect.

A Cause must have the properties of the Effect, so if for example I have a Laptop which is composed of Plastic, the Cause must contain Plastic, the Cause cannot lack Plastic as the Plastic derived from the Cause.

A MindLESS entity(or Nothing) lacks the properties of a Mind, our Cause cannot lack properties for a Mind/Free Will/Awareness as those properties are derived from the Cause.

In Layman's terms, you cannot give what you Do Not have.

Our cause therefore cannot be MindLESS, that is now proven impossible.

Atheism is false, our cause is a Mind.(YHWH: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)

According to your argument; the belief in the Christian God is impossible since Christians deny the existence of Zeus (or any other deity).

The lack of belief in anything has nothing to do with your argument. It is simply a state of mind! Atheists do not give as your incoherent argument claims.

 

[Strathos]

I wish atheism was refuted... but this doesn't do it.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

I wish atheism was refuted... but this doesn't do it.

Why not? demonstrate, provide a rebuttal, don't merely assert that it doesn't without any evidence backing you up.

According to your argument; the belief in the Christian God is impossible since Christians deny the existence of Zeus (or any other deity).

The lack of belief in anything has nothing to do with your argument. It is simply a state of mind! Atheists do not give as your incoherent argument claims.

Atheism is the belief in Atheos, which is what the word derives from, Atheos Ism(belief).

You were incapable refuting the argument, hence you avoid it and wrote this nonsense.

Also, in regard to your ignorant OP, apparently you haven't read the Bible, Bible does have the answers, and allows the honest questions:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Test All things"

Study the Bible, and don't spew the same repeated and refuted claims next time..

Yes, and boiling IS a new property, that came into existence then.

No it didn't as all the physical properties already exists.

Sure, the water was the same and has just changed form.

You just refuted your own argument.

But the "boiling" things came into existence newly, because the water wasn't boiling before, and now it is. It's a new property, given by me... therefore I had to boil first as well.

No, it's the same property, just a different event/form occurring.

Of course I have. I just tent to take things more at face value when I read them, and am less likely to try to make them fit the idea I already have about it.

So you admit your biased, everything has to fit with your idea.

That's not how I work, as a Christian I Test All Things, as commanded(1 Thessalonians 5:21)

But ok.
So, we come short of the glory of god.
This means that god as well needs to come short of the glory of god, right?
After all, we couldn't have this property, if god didn't have it as well.

Evil isn't a property and if you think it is you're either dense or dishonest, as Evil is a lack of good.

So, we are not perfect. This is an attribute of us. This means (by YOUR logic here) that god also has the attribute of non-perfection.

We aren't physically perfect or all knowing, but we have the ability to be morally perfect as YHWH said Matthew 5:48 -"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.", we only fall short when we choose to do evil

Also, No Non-Perfection isn't an attribute, it's a Lack of, Lack of Perfection. a Lack of is not a Thing.

 

[mzungu]

Nope, Theism derives from Theos, Ism means Belief.

Atheism derives from Atheos/ἄθεος Ism means Belief. Hence Atheism, belief in Atheos.

You make it sound as if it is a religious belief! Atheism means that we atheists are free from theistic convictions. We simply don't care to entertain such notions unless science can empirically provide evidence for the existence of a deity. Of course if science does so then we will accept his or her or its existence but this by no means mean that we will have to worship this being.

 

[RichardParker]

You just refuted your own argument.

No, I didn't.
YOU were the one talking about properties. It was water before, it is still water...
But NOW it's boiling. It has a new property. It didn't have that before.


[/quote]No, it's the same property, just a different event/form occurring.[/quote]

No.
"Boiling" and "not boiling" is not the same property. I'm sorry that you can't see that, but this is simply a fact.

So you admit your biased, everything has to fit with your idea.

*lol*
Not even close to what I've said.
Are you doing the same with my comment as you do with your bible? Just read into it what you WANT to read into it for convenience?
How is "I'm reading what the bible actually says, and take it on face value" being bias? This is nonsense.

Evil isn't a property and if you think it is you're either dense or dishonest, as Evil is a lack of good.

I didn't use the word evil once.
Stop bringing up stuff I didn't say, just because it's easier for you to argue with it. Adress the things I've actually said.
The bible passage YOU've cited said, that "we fall short of his glory". That's a description of a property we have... therefore, your god must share that property.

We aren't physically perfect or all knowing, but we have the ability to be morally perfect

So, now you've suddenly changed the language. It's not about properties we actually have, it's about properties we COULD have?
Also, you seem to play fast and loose with the definition of "property".
It seems that everything that you don't want to attribute to your god, you just deny it being a property... because it wouldn't work with your argument.

Tell me something: I'm a physical being. I have a physical body. Actually, most things in this world are physical and actually made of atoms.
So in other words: Your god is physical and made of atoms too, right?
...
Or are these again not "real properties" for... some reason, whatever?

 

[Mainframes]

Evil isn't a property and if you think it is you're either dense or dishonest, as Evil is a lack of good.

No. A lack of good is neutral. I can not be good but that does not make me evil.

Evil and Good are opposite.

Your argument is the equivalent to saying you have no money therefore you are in debt.

 

[sfs]

The argument is based on Cause of Existence.

No, the Argument is based on capitalizing random Words in meaningless Assertions.

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, this thread was fun.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A Cause must have the properties of the Effect, so if for example I have a Laptop which is composed of Plastic, the Cause must contain Plastic, the Cause cannot lack Plastic as the Plastic derived from the Cause.

I drew a stick figure with three arms, but I only have two.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This is not General Apologetics. This thread is closed for staff review